Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact and in law in its finding that the facts of misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a number of the factual findings made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT were not supported by the evidence and were unreasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have limited itself to determining whether the Secretary-General was within his authority to impose disciplinary measures on Mr. Hossain, and that by speculating on the misconduct of another individual, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence was clear and convincing that the Appellant was under the influence of alcohol when he got into his car before the accident occurred and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding otherwise. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his conduct was in violation of Staff Regulation 1.2(f) and the MINUSMA Code of Conduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that: there was no evidence on record that the Appellant was authorised to carry his firearm while off-duty; that, on the contrary, the evidence on record showed that normally security guards did not carry their weapons off-duty; and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the charge of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the contested decision was a lawful exercise of discretion. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s claim that the process was tainted because of the lapse of time since the complained of behavior occurred (ten years) and because of the hearsay nature of the evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT explained that these same arguments were made both to the DT and to the Administration during the investigation phase. The Tribunal agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that there was sufficient corroborating evidence to back the allegations. The Tribunal also noted that it is within the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s role to review...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Kennedy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the sanction letter and record provided inadequate reasons for judicial review leading to the finding that no rational connection or relationship between the evidence and the objective of the disciplinary action has been established. As a result, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was unable to assess the proportionality and lawfulness of the imposition of the disciplinary sanctions.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Kaddoura. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment in part. It only vacated the referral of the former Commissioner-General for accountability, finding that it was not adequate to rely on hearsay to refer a former staff member, be it the former Commissioner-General or any other, to accountability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that there was no possibility of imposing a disciplinary measure on a former staff member, and as such any such referral would be ineffectual.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Mezyed. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied Mr. Mezyed¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Turning to the merits of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had applied correctly the first four conditions in Area Staff Rule 109.4 precedent to possible severance from service for abandonment of post. As to the fifth condition, Mr. Mezyed¡¯s failure to submit an acceptable written explanation for his failure to report, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Agency had failed to properly address the grounds advanced by Mr. Mezyed for his non-return, and as such, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT could not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Andrysek. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

This case was presided by Judge Halfeld, and Judge Murphy drafted the majority opinion. The Majority (Halfeld, Murphy, Raikos and Knierim) dismissed the appeal and held that the appeal was not receivable. Without deciding on the issue whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has an inherent right to hold a non-party in contempt, the Majority found that the appeal did not meet the requirements of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The Majority explained that it had jurisdiction ratione materiae to hear and pass judgment on an appeal pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Statute in which it is asserted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has: (a) exceeded its...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal by the Secretary-General and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

The Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Karkara failed to show that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s assessment of the evidence had resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. It also found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make any errors with regard to the admissibility of witnesses. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any procedural error, and Mr. Karkara¡¯s allegations of procedural irregularities did not put the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings into doubt. Accordingly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that there was clear and convincing evidence of sexual abuse and exploitation by Mr. Karkara. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the sanction of...